Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21
ORIGINAL: sillyflower
ORIGINAL: Pelton
The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.
What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet
ORIGINAL: Michael T
I use whatever type of defence is neccesary. Its usually a mix of linear, linebacker and checker. How on earth are you going to control where and how a defender places his units? The only way to nerf checker boards is to make them less effective. That would mean reducing zoc costs, morale penalities for non-adjacent units and improving the overun rules. Both have been raised early on and gained no traction at all.
WITE 1.0 is fundamentally finished. I can't see any major changes happening until WITE 2.0. The devs themselves have said this. There may be the odd tweak here and there but that's about it. Removing HQ BU and replacing it with something else would be a big change. I may be wrong but I don't see it happening any time soon.
ORIGINAL: gingerbread
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Like a Soviet player would know anything about having to make tradeoffs...ORIGINAL: gingerbread
I have in a current game seen the focus in the south on the Odessa Nikolaev Z-town rout. This is shorter than Chernovtsy D-town and a couple of hexes can be stolen with an extra FBD (with the 4-hex max rule in effect) around Odessa. It does make the void in the centre even larger, so there is an opportunity cost to the max eastward supply reach choice.
This means that there is an early game, long duration effect decision for the Axis, that's good!
Well, the standard '41 tradeoffs are trading space for units and units for time - I have seen an AAR in which Leningrad is given up, after evacuation.
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.
Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.
Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.
I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
ORIGINAL: Michael T
I use whatever type of defence is neccesary. Its usually a mix of linear, linebacker and checker. How on earth are you going to control where and how a defender places his units? The only way to nerf checker boards is to make them less effective. That would mean reducing zoc costs, morale penalities for non-adjacent units and improving the overun rules. Both have been raised early on and gained no traction at all.
WITE 1.0 is fundamentally finished. I can't see any major changes happening until WITE 2.0. The devs themselves have said this. There may be the odd tweak here and there but that's about it. Removing HQ BU and replacing it with something else would be a big change. I may be wrong but I don't see it happening any time soon.
Its about cash and they have moved on to witw.
Time is money and wite has cashed out basicly.
ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
ORIGINAL: heliodorus04
Harry, I think the answer to your question about the implementation that is NOT "muling", it depends. Have I attached units to an HQ right before it's going to use BU? Often, but only once that I can remember did I over-load a corps (4 divisions) and do it, and then it was simply because it logically made sense.
Just like the Soviet, the Axis does not get enough Admin Points to optimize everything. If you are moving your corps around the map efficiently, a rotating series of HQ buildups is seamless. If you're not efficient, it's an admin point sink to have to attach and re-attach divisions to the 'right' corps so it has the buildup benefit.
Sometimes the same HQ does it on alternating turns, sometimes you can rotate them through in sequence. It depends on what your opponent is doing. It depends on terrain.
I've never heard of 'muling' an HQ with zero units attached before, though. Never known anyone who did that.
I have no problem with attaching units to an HQ before doing HQ Buildup; I do the same thing myself when playing Axis (and would probably do the same as the Soviets if I ever got far enough into a game). I also have no problem with a player doing HQ Buildups every turn if he can afford the APs. I also have no problem with a player "rotating" the HQ Buildups as you say to maintain a steady offensive. That just makes good sense and, IMO, is an effective tactic when employed by the best players.
However, "Muling" (as I now understand it) is when units are attached to an HQ the turn after it has done an HQ Buildup. I have never done this myself but I understand it results in those newly attached units gaining significant MPs over what they would otherwise have had. If so, I do have a problem with this and do believe it is an exploit. That is my opinion and others are welcome to theirs of course. This is why I was hoping the game designers would say something here about whether this "Muling" (ie attaching units to an HQ the turn after supply buildup to gain the MP boost for several units) was anticipated by them and is WAD or if they consider it an exploit of the HQ Buidup/supply system. If they come on board and say it is WAD then I for one will shutup about it, accept it and start using it myself. But if it is not WAD then I would like to know that as well.
ORIGINAL: Michael T
Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.
If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.
The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.
I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.
Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same. All HQ BU does is allow a player to direct extra supply to units he desires. What is so wrong with that? It is not gamey. Its a legitimate method to keep spearheads going.
Have a look at OCS, GMT's Barbarossa series, FITE/SE, explicit supply in HPS Panzer Campaigns. They all have abstract methods to create mobile supply dumps. WITE does nothing more than these other games. Just differently. The effect is the same. Get over it. It's part the established method of forward supply in wargaming.
ORIGINAL: Michael T
As the game stands now Germany cannot win the game without HQ BU against a *competent* Soviet player, period.
ORIGINAL: Schmart
It would be interesting to know if you play a more historical Russian stand fast/linear defense, or a historically implausible pull-back carpet/checkerboard defense.
ORIGINAL: Michael T
Do you guys really understand how HQBU works? When you do it all attached units get 99% fuel, ammo and supplies. The HQ itself also gets loaded up with extra fuel. Depending on how many units are attached this could be between 1000 to 2000 tons give or take. This extra fuel is then made available to whatever
units are attached in a logistics phase 2 turns later. The terms chaining and muling are related as I see it. There are elements of each in both so called methods.
If you BU a HQ that only has one or even no units attached it will cost less AP's and have less extra fuel assigned to it (and expend less trucks naturally). BU a HQ with 5 units and it will cost much more in AP's and trucks but it will have a huge stock pile of gas.
The said HQ can move up to its allowance with all this gas (because it will still have extra trucks assigned to it) and it will refuel any units attached to it within 5 hexes next logistics phase. The players can naturally change the attached units.
I don't see any problem with this because it is a game. And as such many things are abstracted. Including supply. When I look at a HQ I see C&C plus a supply infrastructure. Some games seperate this. Not WITE. Perhaps this is the difficult part for players to accept. A HQ loaded up with extra gas is simply a commander creating an adhoc temporary mobile supply dump. These exist in many other games. They are the norm in operational wargaming.
Perhaps people would be happier if we had a little truck unit created every time we did a HQ BU rather than assign the trucks to a HQ. But the end result would be the same.
ORIGINAL: Harrybanana
The problem I have with this is that HQs recieve a lot of MPs. So if you buildup an HQ one turn you can move that HQ an incredible distance (particularly as the Axis) the second turn before attaching units to it. You can therefore effectively move a lot of supply and gas a long way from your railheads. ... I would have no problem if the game included mobile supply dumps (in fact it is too bad that it doesn't). But I would have a problem if those mobile supply dumps recieved 50 mps per turn.
ORIGINAL: Pelton
ORIGINAL: sillyflower
ORIGINAL: Pelton
The rail repair nerf is going to make taking Moscow and Rostov much harder now even with chaining,because its tied to the railhead.
What is this nerf? I though rule was always you can build RR up to 4 hexes away + 6 in baltic. Has this changed and if so how? I know I'm only on T3 as G but I haven't noticed any difference yet
Before patch you could as German repair up to 8 rail hexes on a single line with 2 rail units and more in north.
ORIGINAL: janh
On the other hand, the latter might mean that the amount of trucks required to be payed for HQB might be on the low side? Surely the designers have also for this done a very solid assessment and used reasonable averages? Generally, though, it presently just seems that supply, fuel etc generally reach units to easily in all the possible mechanisms. More like under peace conditions. For example, since there are no small dumps, storage facilities for larger front depots, or rear depots, no real trains or supply columns of any kind, also important things like interdiction and partisans reducing supply and replacement transfer efficiency are only taken into account in a very abstracted way. This is one factor that would cause friction in the supply chain. Perhaps factors like these have been a little underestimated, allowing very effective supply tracing, and therefore an op-tempo that can be generally surprisingly fast for extended periods?
ORIGINAL: Ron
I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?
ORIGINAL: Ron
I think Pelton continues to raise some very important points even in his over the top style. After reading the WitE boards since release I have come to realize he is necessary and a natural outgrowth, foil if you will, to the 'Russian fanboy' POV prevalent in the game. No doubt games have been German-centric in the past and WitE has definitely changed that. However, after playing one game as Russia early on it was pretty evident to me it was a Russian fan's wet dream. Now with 1.05 trying to inject some balance into the Russian juggernaut after several months of player 'testing', we immediately have calls to remove the Lvov pocket, HQ buildup, German Army too large-advances too fast etc without ever playing the games past the first blizzard or looking at the overall context. There are many things requiring fine-tuning in this game, but is nerfing German capabilities really one of them?
